Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: sandymac Date: Sep 23, 2004 2:30pm
Forum: freecache Subject: Coral vs FreeCache

Coral: limits cached files to 50 megs
FreeCache: doesn't seem to have a limit other than the space a mirror chooses to reserve
Coral: tries to mirror sites by encoding the real hostname in the coral hostname so that relative links work.
FreeCache: is designed to just cache one file at a time.
Coral: tries to uses a smart DNS method to send clients to the nearest mirror and frequently fails.
FreeCache: does HTTP redirects to each mirror and fails when FreeCache.org isn't responding.
Coral: doesn't (yet) support Accept-Ranges which would allow seeking in streamed media
FreeCache: does support Acccept-Ranges

Both will have problems with the caching of undesirable content (spam, illegal-porn, etc). Neither follow the HTTP to the letter but I don't think the HTTP spec writers envisioned either of them. Both are hacks.

Six one, half dozen the other.

This post was modified by sandymac on 2004-09-23 21:30:54